Term
| Why is the study generalisable? |
|
Definition
| It was repeated in 12 hospitals with the same results, so there is a higher chance that it will apply to others. |
|
|
Term
| Why is the study reliable? |
|
Definition
| It was repeated in 12 hospitals with the same results, so it was not just one hospital mistreating patients. |
|
|
Term
| What is the application of this study? |
|
Definition
| Help psychiatric hospitals improve their working practices so patients can receive better care. |
|
|
Term
| Why was the study ecologically valid? |
|
Definition
| It was a field experiment and was done covertly to avoid demand characteristics. |
|
|
Term
| How would the pseudopatients displaying a standard symptom of schizophrenia have affected the valididy of the experiment? |
|
Definition
| It may have guided the staff's interpretations of the pseudopatient's symptoms, making the experiment less valid. |
|
|
Term
| Why might the experiment not be valid today? |
|
Definition
| It was carried out 30 years ago, and many hospitals would have changed their working practices since then, so the results may no longer be relevant. |
|
|
Term
| How were the hospital staff deceived? |
|
Definition
| They believed the pseudopatient had schizophrenia, and the time wasted with them could have been spent with a real patient. |
|
|
Term
| Who gave informed consent? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Did the participants have the right to withdraw? |
|
Definition
| No; they could not be released from the hospital until deemed ready, though all wanted to leave. |
|
|
Term
| How is this experiment similar to Hofling (1966) |
|
Definition
| The hospital staff did not give informed consent, which may have caused distress. This happened in Hofling when nurses were deceived and said they felt emotional distress during debriefing. |
|
|
Term
| How did Rosenhan not protect his participants? |
|
Definition
| They were distressed during the experiment and did not have the right to withdraw. |
|
|
